Results by title

Japanese and Korean are typologically quite similar languages, and the linguistic phenomena of the former often hve counterparts in the latter. These collections from the annual Japanese/Korean linguistics conference include essays on the phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, historical linguistics, discourse analysis, prosody, and psycholinguistics of both languages. Such comparative studies deepen our understanding of both languages and will be a useful reference to students and scholars in either field.

Japanese and Korean are typologically quite similar languages, and the linguistic phenomena of the former often hve counterparts in the latter. These collections from the annual Japanese/Korean linguistics conference include essays on the phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, historical linguistics, discourse analysis, prosody, and psycholinguistics of both languages. Such comparative studies deepen our understanding of both languages and will be a useful reference to students and scholars in either field.

The annual Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference provides a forum for presenting research that will broaden the understanding of these two languages, especially through comparative study. The sixteenth Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, held in October of 2006 at Kyoto University, was the first in the history of the conference to be held outside of the United States. The thirty-six papers in this volume encompass a variety of areas, such as phonetics; phonology; morphology; syntax; semantics; pragmatics; discourse analysis; and the geographical and historical factors that influence the development of languages, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics.

The papers in this volume are from the seventeenth Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, which was held at the University of California, Los Angeles in November of 2007. The articles cover a broad range of topics in Japanese and Korean linguistics, including phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, historical linguistics, discourse analysis, prosody, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, acquisition, and grammaticalization.

Japanese and Korean are typologically similar, with linguistic phenomena in one often having counterparts in the other. The Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference provides a forum for research, particularly through comparative study, on both languages. The papers in this volume are from the twenty-fifth conference, which was held at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. They include essays on the phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, historical linguistics, discourse analysis, prosody, and psycholinguistics of both languages. Such comparative studies deepen our understanding of both languages and will be a useful reference for students and scholars in either field.

John Reed (1887-1920) is best known as the author of Ten Days That Shook the World and as champion of the communist movement in the United States. Still, Reed remains a writer almost systematically ignored by the literary critical establishment, even if alternately vilified and lionized by historians and by films like Warren Beatty’s Reds.

John Reed and the Writing of Revolution examines Reed’s writing from a different critical perspective—one informed by a theoretical and practical understanding of literary nonfiction. In both politics and writing, John Reed defied fashion. In his short career, Reed transcended the traditional creative arts of fiction, poetry, and drama in favor of deeply researched histories composed with the cadence of fiction and the power of fact. Reed thereby alienated literary critics who had idealized timeless artistry against the rough-and-tumble world of historical details and political implications.

Working from a close investigation of rare articles, manuscripts, and the Reed papers at Harvard as well as from Reed’s published work, Daniel W. Lehman offers the first detailed literary study of the man who followed Pancho Villa into battle; wrote literary profiles of such characters as Henry Ford, William Jennings Bryan, and Billy Sunday; explicated the Byzantine factionalism of Eastern Europe; and witnessed the storming of the Winter Palace and the birth of Soviet Russia.

This volume questions the motives of Supreme Court justices in a landmark case: The Supreme Court's intervention in the presidential election of 2000, and its subsequent decision in favor of George W. Bush, elicited immediate, heated, and widespread debate. Critics argued that the justices used weak legal arguments to overturn the Florida Supreme Court's ruling, ending a ballot recount and awarding the presidency to Bush. More fundamentally, they questioned the motives of conservative judges who arrived at a decision in favor of the candidate who reflected their political leanings.
     Judging the Supreme Court examines this controversial case and the extensive attention it has received. To fully understand the case, Clarke Rountree argues, we must understand "judicial motives." These are comprised of more than each judge's personal opinions. Judges' motives, which Rountree calls "rhetorical performances," are as influential and publicly discussed as their decisions themselves. Before they are dissected in the media, judges' motives are carefully crafted by the decision- makers themselves, their critics, and their defenders. Justices consider not only the motives of the government, of military officials, of criminals, of public speakers, and of others, they also consider, construct, construe, spin, and deconstruct the motives of dissenters (whom they want to show are "misguided"), earlier courts, lower courts, and, especially, themselves. 
     Every judicial opinion is essentially a portrait of motives that says, "Here's what we did and here's why we did it." Well-constructed judicial motives reinforce the idea that we live under "the rule of law," while motives articulated less successfully raise questions about the legitimacy not just of individual judicial decisions but also of our political system and its foundation on an impartial judiciary. In Bush v. Gore, Rountree concludes, the judges of the majority opinion were not motivated by judicial concerns about law and justice, but rather by their own political and personal motives.